AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two shared benchmark tests between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile and the AMD Radeon Pro 460: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both cases, the NVIDIA part wins decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4050 Mobile scores 74,748 points against the Radeon Pro 460's 15,284 points. That is a delta of 389.1% in favor of the NVIDIA GPU. This is not a marginal lead; the RTX 4050 Mobile delivers nearly five times the raw compute throughput in this workload. For context, the Radeon Pro 460's own average benchmark score sits at 17,509, placing it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The RTX 4050 Mobile's average is 19,049, which is the 63rd percentile. The gap in this single test is far larger than the gap in their overall averages, indicating that the OpenCL test heavily favors the newer architecture's compute capabilities.

The Vulkan result follows the same pattern. The RTX 4050 Mobile records 75,235 points, while the Radeon Pro 460 manages 16,816 points. The delta here is 347.4%. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the data suggests the Ada Lovelace architecture handles it with far greater efficiency than the older GCN 4.0 design. The RTX 4050 Mobile's closest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (average score 19,036, delta 0.1%) and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (average score 18,954, delta 0.5%). The Radeon Pro 460's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (average score 17,551, delta -0.2%) and the AMD Radeon 780M (average score 17,588, delta -0.5%). These rival comparisons show that the RTX 4050 Mobile sits in a much higher performance tier overall.

There is no benchmark in the database where the Radeon Pro 460 wins against the RTX 4050 Mobile. The head-to-head record is 2 wins for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD. The Radeon Pro 460 does have one recorded test that the RTX 4050 Mobile does not share, Geekbench Metal, where it scores 20,426 points. However, since the NVIDIA part has no Metal score in the database, this cannot be compared directly. The available data shows a one-sided contest in the shared workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 19,049, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509. The RTX 4050 Mobile also sits in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, two points above the Radeon Pro 460's 61st percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4050 Mobile scores 75,235 against the Radeon Pro 460's 16,816. This results in a 347.4% delta in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 460 win any shared benchmark?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), and the Radeon Pro 460 loses both. The NVIDIA GPU wins both with deltas of 389.1% and 347.4% respectively.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. The Radeon Pro 460 has 81.28 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile packs 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die, yielding a density of 118.9 million transistors per mm². The Radeon Pro 460 has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4 million per mm².

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient based on the data?

A: The Radeon Pro 460 has a lower TDP at 35 W compared to the RTX 4050 Mobile's 50 W. However, the RTX 4050 Mobile delivers far higher compute throughput, so efficiency depends on whether one prioritizes absolute performance or power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile uses the AD107 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip based on GCN 4.0, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 5 nm versus 14 nm. This helps explain the transistor density gap. The RTX 4050 Mobile contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, while the Radeon Pro 460 contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The RTX 4050 Mobile's density is 118.9 million transistors per mm², compared to 24.4 million per mm² for the Radeon Pro 460.

The compute resources differ sharply. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. It also includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Radeon Pro 460, which has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate for the RTX 4050 Mobile is 84.24 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro 460. Texture rate is 140.4 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 8.986 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part versus 1.858 TFLOPS for the AMD part. Both support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio to FP32.

Memory subsystem designs also diverge. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. Interestingly, the Radeon Pro 460 has a wider memory bus but lower bandwidth due to slower memory clocks. The NVIDIA card's memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the AMD part runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4050 Mobile, PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon Pro 460.

API support also reflects the architectural gap. The RTX 4050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA part's DirectX 12 Ultimate feature level enables advanced graphics features that the older GCN part cannot access. Both cards are IGP slot width with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The RTX 4050 Mobile outperforms the Radeon Pro 460 in every shared test, with deltas ranging from 347.4% to 389.1%. The average benchmark scores confirm this: 19,049 versus 17,509. The RTX 4050 Mobile also has a higher percentile ranking at 63 versus 61. The NVIDIA part is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads.

The Radeon Pro 460's sole advantages lie in its lower TDP (35 W versus 50 W) and its wider memory bus (128-bit versus 96-bit), but the latter does not translate into higher bandwidth. The RTX 4050 Mobile achieves 192.0 GB/s with its narrower bus, more than double the Radeon Pro 460's 81.28 GB/s. The Radeon Pro 460 also benefits from a much earlier release date (2016 versus 2023), but the production status shows it is end-of-life while the RTX 4050 Mobile remains active.

For users selecting a GPU strictly from the recorded data, the RTX 4050 Mobile is the superior performer. The Radeon Pro 460 would only be relevant in scenarios where power draw is the absolute constraint and the lower 35 W TDP is mandatory. Given the massive performance delta, the RTX 4050 Mobile is the recommended part for any compute or graphics workload present in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile | AMD Radeon Pro 460 |

|----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 18,900 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 159 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 118.9M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1455 MHz | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1755 MHz | 907 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 96 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 80 | 64 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 20 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 80 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 84.24 GPixel/s | 14.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 140.4 GTexel/s | 58.05 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.986 TFLOPS | 1.858 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.986 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 35 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-01-02 | 2016-10-29 |

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4050 Mobile wins in every category that affects performance. It has higher clocks, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, dedicated RT and tensor cores, faster memory, and a newer architecture. In the shared benchmarks, it wins OpenCL by 389.1% and Vulkan by 347.4%. Its compute throughput is 8.986 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS. Its bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. Its pixel rate is 84.24 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s. The data shows that for any workload measured in the database, the RTX 4050 Mobile is the clear winner.

The Radeon Pro 460 has only two recorded specification wins. First, its TDP is lower at 35 W versus 50 W, which could matter in thermally constrained mobile chassis. Second, its memory bus is wider at 128-bit versus 96-bit, although this does not yield higher bandwidth. It also has an earlier release date, but that is not a performance advantage. The Radeon Pro 460 does have a Metal benchmark score of 20,426 in the database, but the RTX 4050 Mobile has no Metal score recorded, so no comparison is possible.

For use cases, the RTX 4050 Mobile is the part to choose for OpenCL compute workloads, Vulkan gaming or rendering, or any task requiring modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The Radeon Pro 460 could be considered only for legacy Mac environments where Metal support is required and power draw is paramount. However, based strictly on the shared data, the RTX 4050 Mobile dominates every measurable performance metric. The Radeon Pro 460's lower power draw is its only distinguishing advantage, and that advantage comes with a 389.1% performance deficit in OpenCL and a 347.4% deficit in Vulkan.